Director, Sense About Science USA, which advocates for an evidence based approach to science and technology and for clinical trial transparency. Editor, STATS.org, a collaboration between the American Statistical Association and Sense About Science USA. Visiting Fellow, Cornell University. I have written about data and statistics and how they are interpreted in our so-called "knowledge economy," especially in relation to risk and regulation. I've written for the New Yorker online, Harvard Business Review, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. I speak regularly about the media's coverage of science and statistics and scientific communication. Educated at Trinity College Dublin, Georgetown, and Columbia.

No Free Speech For Beyoncé! Says New York Times Writer

One might question the value of paying Beyoncé Knowles $50 million to advertise Pepsi during the Super Bowl; but to question her – or Pepsi’s – right to do so, as the New York Times does today, on the grounds that a), she probably wouldn’t agree to advertise a semi-automatic weapon and b), because Pepsi “may one day be ranked with cigarettes as a killer” is the kind of logic one might ask for protection from.

This judicial, if not judicious, opinion comes from a column by Mark Bittman in today’s Sunday New York Times, headlined “Why Do Stars Think It’s O.K. To Sell Soda?” The obvious rejoinder is why does the New York Times think it’s O.K. to publish writers who suggest that it’s not? Say hello to freedom of speech. Soda is legal; advertising soda is legal; the Super Bowl permits advertising, so do the math safe in the bosom of the constitution.

To suggest curtailing these rights, and the rights of other poor (sic) superstar artists and athletes to promote liquids containing sugar – would, you might think, require a staggeringly learned legal argument, one of such depth and originality that even if it were rejected, it would sway public opinion by the majesty of its logic.

Instead, imagine Bittman presenting his column, as written, to the Supreme Court of the United States? “So, Mr. Bittman, you want Beyoncé to stop advertising Pepsi because such an advertisement might induce someone to harm or kill him or herself, or others, as if she had, in fact, advertised a semi-automatic weapon? Next!”

As for the related claim that Pepsi or Coke – or any liquid with sugar – “may one day be ranked with cigarettes as a killer,” what’s the quantitative probability that such a day will come to pass? C’mon! Anything may happen – just as some things we think may happen most assuredly won’t. As the psychologist Philip Tetlock demonstrated in his magisterial analysis of 20-years of expert prediction, a dart-throwing chimpanzee was a better guide to the future.

To prophesy proof of harm and use it to beat up on Beyoncé (and Madonna and Elton) is not just unfair, it’s a kind of Kafkaesque prior restraint: we might have the evidence next week that what you say tomorrow will be harmful, so we’re going to try and stop you talking now. This kind of nonsense is precisely why we have a First Amendment.

Of course, there are restrictions on some kinds of advertising, and this is what Bittman is aiming at beyond sniping at celebrity product endorsement. He wants to make the case that the US should do to soda what it has done to tobacco, which is to put strict limits on its advertising in the media. For this to be a reasonable argument, however, the harm from soda has to be qualitatively and quantitatively similar to the harm from cigarettes.

It isn’t. And, of course, that’s why Bittman relegates proof to some day in the future.

The statistical evidence for an association between smoking and lung cancer is overwhelming: 1,900 percent for those who smoke versus those who don’t (a relative risk of 20). This was established some 50 years ago. As we know from further research, there is no harm-free threshold at which you can smoke safely.

Even as we utilize vastly more scientific knowledge and technical ability than early tobacco researchers could, the evidence that a soda is the equivalent of a cigarette doesn’t even come close. The strongest data, from prospective cohort studies, is a relative risk of 1.26 for consuming a soda a day and developing diabetes. By the conventional standards of epidemiology, this is weak – indeed, weak enough to possibly be a statistical artifact.

On the grounds of curbing the harm from obesity, one might as well argue that we restrict advertising for cheese, which in fact is what Ireland’s broadcasting authority proposed doing last year along with pizza and fries, because cheese is high in saturated fat and salt. This, of course, struck many people as bonkers, but it highlighted the kind of crazed thinking that flows from trying to legislate speech codes on the basis of “unhealthy” foods. Nutritional value is a slippery concept. (Meanwhile, Irish nutritional studies showed no correlation between either cheese or soda consumption and that country’s increased prevalence of obesity.)

One might venture, following Emerson, that a “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds” when it comes to food and to free speech; but arbitrariness is an arch through which liberty goes to die.

Freedom of speech can’t be something you can junk just because you don’t like the fact that someone is getting buckets of money to advertise something you don’t like and you don’t want America to consume – and you have a column on the New York Times from which to pronounce your papal-like bull.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? What’s good for Mark Bittman is also good for Beyoncé, even if he doesn’t quite understand why.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Yet another in a series of moronic responses to speech and behaviors. I am referring NOT to Mark Bittman/NY Times but rather to the attempt of the writer of this article to attack a point of view with such weak and ill-informed arguments. Drink 1 to 2 cases of soft drinks per day and see what affect it has on the human body, as compared to 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes. Not only is one at risk of Diabetes, obesity, and a host of other physiological abnormalities, but it has been demonstrated that sugar may feed, and therefore grow, cancer cells. Another point to which this article demonstrates narrow-minded thinking is the author demonizes forward-thinking and taking prudent cautionary steps, which may prove to be helpful to the general population. This is of course another example of a mis-guided and erroneous perception that so-called rights and freedoms are to be obtained at any cost, no matter the harm or consequences.

“Drink 1 to 2 cases of soft drinks per day and see what affect it has on the human body, as compared to 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes. Not only is one at risk of Diabetes, obesity, and a host of other physiological abnormalities.”

This is silly. Eat five pounds of red meat per day or five large pizzas or a pound of deep fried mozzarella and you will see a deleterious effect on the body, assuming that you aren’t an Olympic athlete in training and expending thousands of calories. Where have I suggested that consuming a case of soda or more a day is harmless? And who consumes a case of soda a day? Certainly, according to the nutritional data we possess, the majority of soda drinkers do not consume at this level. The point is that sugared drinks are not inherently toxic in the same way as cigarettes are.

As for the suggestion that sugar promotes cancer, well – that’s a bit like saying breathing promotes cancer because it contributes to cell oxidation. Your body CANNOT function without sucrose. Your cells need sugar to function. And guess what – cancer cells need energy too, to function. But that doesn’t mean sugar “grows” cancer cells, so we need to ban it.

As for “forward thinking” and “prudent cautionary steps,” you appear to know less about biochemistry than Mr. Bittman. This is why I don’t want either of you arrogating power over other people’s lives.

There is no fanatic so dangerous as she who endeavors to protect a man from himself. In former times people were relieved of their liberty because they worshipped the wrong god; now they are relieved of their liberty because they consume the wrong foods.

Of course the nascent counts. By Butterworth’s argument, one should pay no mind to animal abusers though it’s known that one kind of violence links with others (as if the fact in itself of harm to animals is not enough). Butterworth is not on the side of nuance, only strident proclamation and bloody proofs. Sometimes it is right to ignore ‘signs’ (e.g. Camus’s The Stranger- that guy was scapegoated by the normative mob); other times, it is not a good idea to ignore signs; and it is not sensitive. Ambivalence has more truth than your pumped up argument.

Thanks for a well reasoned column that shows the fallacy of the arguments made in the New York Times article….that article was absurd…I am in agreement with your comment 100%.

Why is that writer not decrying Lana Del Rey or other celebrities who are promoting Vodka on air? Now, Alcohol IS a active killer, way more than any soda is. But this NYT writer has no comment on that, and is imbibing wine probably a lot…such hypocrisy!

Thank you for writing in! There are many levels to the double standards. One of the things that bothers me is that when the poor over-eat they are the victims of evil corporations; but when the wealthy and educated over eat, they are gourmands.

The writer prose is attuned to Shakespearean jargon. Being able to write such a long article about Beyonce advertising soda and comparing it to the writer who opposes it was, well let’s say Shakespearean. Case in Point: “One might venture, following Emerson, that a “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds” when it comes to food and to free speech; but arbitrariness is an arch through which liberty goes to die.” Oh and here is another quote from the article that the writer should consider is he in the right field to write about entertainment stars instead of a remake of a Shakespearean play. Here it is: ” To suggest curtailing these rights, and the rights of other poor (sic) superstar artists and athletes to promote liquids containing sugar – would, you might think, require a staggeringly learned legal argument, one of such depth and originality that even if it were rejected, it would sway public opinion by the majesty of its logic. ‘Majesty of its logic’ Got it. Now explain or should Mark move over and let this writer write for the two of them.